Obama v 1st Amendment

Custom Search



STFU!    I won!


help fight the media




1st Amendment
Obama is scheduled to speak at a rally at the University of Mary Washington today (UMW).  The public is invited to this forum, on property it, the public, owns.  However, signs and banners will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus officials.  Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of politicos.  Why does an Obama rally justify taking a little off the top of Americansí most fundamental rights?

A UMW spokeswoman says that the Obama campaign required the sign-and-banner ban.  That campaign tells us that the ban is for "security" reasons.  But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no "part of the sign could be used as a weapon," e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick.

Just more Chicago gangland tactics from Camp Obama.

The McCain campaign tells us, "We encourage people to make signs at our events."
Police State Tactics
Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

"St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign."

"What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

"This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson.  I can think of nothing more offensive to Jeffersonís thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights.  The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

"Barack Obama needs to grow up.  Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family.  Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility.  When necessary, we refute them.  Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts -- not a free society."
Obama Is An Old-Fashioned Stalinist
In this letter, sent to TV stations from Obama campaign general counsel Bob Bauer, the Obama campaign, once again, attempts to intimidate television station managers from airing a TV ad by the National Rifle Association.

Bauer argues, "Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities.'  Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'  We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."

The Obama campaign takes issue with an ad called "Hunter," pointing out that claims in the ad were called "false" by Factcheck.org, and were given three Pinocchios by the Washington Post's "Factchecker."

In response, Cleta Mitchell, Counsel to the NRA, fired back in a letter to station managers that the fact checkers in this case are wrong.

"We respectfully request that your station disregard the shamefully false assertions from the Obama campaign and its attorneys," Mitchell writes.  You can read more of Mitchell's letter at the blog of Ben Smith of Politico, who reprinted it in full.

Political speech is absolute.  This is another attempt by Obama's NKVD to deny Americans their 1st Amendment "free expression" rights.  As you read down the page you will see other instances of intimidation by Obama's NKVD.  This is obviously a formal tactic of his campaign.

Just imagine what these people would do with the full force of the Department of Justice behind them.

Obama's assault on free speech reminds me of how Islam deals with speech it does not like: "Behead Those Who Insult The Prophet."

As an aside, the "lawyer letter" is on Obama Campaign stationary.  Obama's name in the letterhead is quite large.  One can hardly read Biden's name.
The Bigger Story
300winmag says the bigger story is that liberals have thrown away their own sacred principle of "separation of church and state" to side with an alien and hostile religion.  They turn a blind eye to that loathsome Phelps guy who desecrates funerals of our military to invite a suit that will bring him millions.  In the name of his "free speech," we have to shut up and take whatever crap he dishes out.

Since the Supreme Court said that burning the American flag was "protected symbolic free speech," will liberals and cowards elevate the koran above that principle?  This pastor is free to burn his own Bible, the American flag, his money, and anything else that does not create a fire hazard.

But now that Islamic terrorists, their sympathizers, and self-proclaimed dhimmis oppose his First Amendment rights, the entire country is being threatened by another cowardly attack if we don't submit.

These murderous coward Islamists have murdered innocent Americans for no reason.  Will they try to kill us deader if they now think they have a reason?  I'm afraid that the majority of our "best and brightest" have proclaimed the USA a "dhimmi nation" rather than standing firmly for the First Amendment and our highest standards, like that of "separation of church and state." 

Their greatest principles were the first ones they threw overboard upon reading a press release.
"Transparent" Obama Administration Holds More "Listen Only" Events
Eric Scheiner says Barack Obama has often lauded his administration as being the "most transparent," but the administration continues to hold a string of "listen only" media events where reporters are not allowed to ask questions.

On Wednesday, first lady Michelle Obama held a "listen only" media call on the "Joining Forces" national initiative to support military families.  This latest conference call where reporters can not ask questions, is part of a string of media events with the first lady where reporters can only "listen in" or attend if invited by the White House press office.
This "listen only" procedure has been used earlier this May by the State Department.  During the first days of the U.S.-China economic summit neither Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner took questions from reporters.

There have also been reports of threats from the White House press office to ban reporters from events if they donít like the coverage they have been given in the past.  This Wednesday, a reporter from the Boston Herald newspaper was not given full access to Obamaís fundraising visit in Massachusetts.  Reportedly because the White House press office was not pleased with a front page op-ed by 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney that ran in the paper.

Late last month, it was reported the White House press office threatened to ban a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and other Hearst newspaper reporters from the press pool covering Obama.  This was allegedly because the reporter posted video of protestors at an Obama campaign fundraiser for the paperís website.  The White House denies the threat was issued.

Not all reporters are threatened with bans however, it was revealed on air on May 12th that CNN reporter Fareed Zakaria has face-to-face meetings with President Obama, at Obamaís request.  This is after the CNN host told viewers on-air that he would vote for Obama for president in October of 2008.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

However, Team Obama seems to have no problem with abridging the freedom of the press -- but what is really weird is that "the press" doesn't seem to mind -- in Obama's case.
Comments . . .

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2009 - 2011

All right reserved